What a load of bull! Harry Reids U.S. Senate hasnt passed a budget resolution since April 29, 2009. Barack Obama hasnt presented a budget, at least not one acceptable to either Democrats or Republicans, since the day he set foot in office. Yet he thinks he should keep his job. But thats not how it works in America. Obama was given a fair shot; he had his fair share of opportunities, but he chose to pass the buck, running his mouth instead of governing, and now its time to give someone else a shot.

U.S. Gross Domestic Product has grown by a mere 7.59% from 2007 and 2011, or at an average annual growth rate of a pathetic 1.90%. But Federal Agency spending has increased by 32.04% over the same period, or at an average annual growth rate of 8.01%. Does the fact that Agency spending outpaced the economy by 322% sound any alarms? Well if we had a chief executive who was paying attention it would. This is an outrageous, hair-raising, mind-boggling, egregious, statistical fact, yet all U.S. taxpayers have heard for the last three plus years are threat after threat of higher taxes.

The Bush tax cuts are out, no theyre in. The payroll tax cut is gone, no its back. The AMT Patch is dead, no its still breathing.

And now we have to contend with yet another threat, Taxmageddon. Taxmageddon is a $494 billion tax increase that strikes at the beginning of 2013. This time its the largest tax increase in U.S. history, scheduled to hit us smack in the face on January 1, 2013. Under current law, tax policies in seven different categories will expire, including the Bush Tax Cuts, payroll tax cut, the AMT Patch, plus five of the 18 new tax hikes from Obamacare will begin, see Taxmageddon: Massive Tax Increase Coming in 2013.

Unusual uncertainty remains unusually uncertain.

With Taxmageddon looming, the GSA scandal is well-timed. It has undeniably exposed the truth. And the truth is that the federal government has been living large through its discretionary spending, throwing our future to the wind, while weve been left sitting on pins and needles. Since the economy is practically at zero growth, where do these morons think the money to pay higher taxes will come from? I find it amazing, simply amazing, that no one has been in charge of the national purse for the last three-plus years. Absolutely no one has kept tabs on how our tax dollars were spent. We deserve better.

With an estimated $6.3 Trillion borrowed and squandered on Obamas watch, and red flags abounding, it makes me sick to my stomach that politicians are suddenly concerned. You would have to be blind or not paying any attention to federal spending whatsoever to not notice the humongous 6,896.30% increase in the GSAs expenditures from 2007 to 2011. Why blame the GSA? Blame yourselves, or blame Obama. The buck stops with Obama, right? So fire him. Put Obama on trial.

Maybe if someone wasnt on the golf course, on vacation, or campaigning every other week (at our expense), and instead actually took time to study the budget line by line, and to work with Congress on cutting and capping spending, the GSA incident wouldnt have occurred. I call it not doing the job you were elected to do. But hindsight is 20/20; foresight is not reelecting someone who has proven he cant handle the job.

Does the following condensed OMB table, Outlays by Agency, which compares government spending growth from 2007 to 2011, raise any flags? If you ask me, the entire record is a red flag. The General Services Administration is an obvious bell ringer, its expenditures having grown from $27 million in 2007, to over $1.8 billion in 2011, or by 6,896.30%. But its not the only agency that should concern us, frankly they all should.

As you scan through the following highlights, keep in mind that the entire U.S. economy grew by a mere 7.59% over the four-year period, or at average annual growth of 1.90%.

The Department of Agricultures four-year spending growth was 65.11%, with average annual growth of 16.28%. You would think they were actually growing crops or raising livestock, but we know thats not the case, so why have annual expenditures increased by $54.9 billion? Cut it.

The Department of Commerces four-year spending growth was 53.36%, with average annual growth of 13.34%. You would think they were actually manufacturing products or providing services, but we know thats not the case, so why have annual expenditures increased by $3.5 billion? Cut it.

The Department of Energys four-year spending growth was 55.95%, with average annual growth of 13.99%. You would think they were actually producing electricity, mining coal or drilling for oil, but we know thats not the case, so why have annual expenditures increased by $11.3 billion? Cut it.

The Department of Labors four-year spending growth was 177.58%, with average annual growth of 44.40%. You would think they were actually performing job placement services, but we know thats not the case, so why have annual expenditures increased by $84.4 billion? Cut it.

The Department of States four-year spending growth was 77.29%, with average annual growth of 19.32%. You would think they were annexing nations and granting Statehood, in order to increase GDP, but we know thats not the case, so why have annual expenditures increased by $10.6 billion? Cut it.

The Department of Veterans Affairs four-year spending growth was 74.36%, with average annual growth of 18.59%. Is this sustainable on average annual GDP growth of just 1.90%? Not hardly. So why have annual expenditures increased by $54.1 billion? Cut it.

The Corps of Engineers--Civil Works four-year spending growth was 158.75%, with average annual growth of 39.69%. You would think they were actually building roads and bridges, but we know thats not the case, so why have annual expenditures increased by $6.2 billion? Cut it.

The Small Business Administrations four year spending growth was 424.51%, with average annual growth of 106.13%. You would think they were actually making loans directly to small businesses, but we know thats not the case, so why have annual expenditures increased by $4.9 billion? Cut it.

The Social Security Administrations (On-Budget) four-year spending growth was 182.82%, with average annual growth of 45.70%. On-budget spending isnt mandated, its not the entitlements portion in which Social Security Taxes offset payments to retirees and those with disabilities. No, this is interest and principal repayments of previously looted funds, and coverage of shortfalls due to the payroll tax cut and other gimmicks. You would think they were actually increasing benefit checks or lowering Medicare premiums, but we know thats not the case, so why have annual expenditures increased by $100.4 billion? Cut it.

Total Federal Outlays experienced four-year spending growth of 32.04%, with average annual growth of 8.01%. With that kind of spending, you would think our economy would have grown by more than 7.59% over the four-year period, and achieved far more than average annual growth of 1.90%, but we know that didnt happen, so why have annual expenditures increased by $874.4 billion? Has the economic stimulus program of 2009 become permanent? Cut it.

And last but far from least, the General Services Administrations four-year spending growth was a whopping 6,896.30%, with average annual growth of 1,724.07%. You would think they were throwing some really wicked parties, or something. Oh, that was the case; no wonder annual expenditures increased by $1.9 billion? Just cut it.

Our government is spending at a rate which is 322% greater than the underlying economy. We call this unsustainable. What do you call it? The egregious growth of the GSAs expenditures should have been caught long before it became a public scandal. Has anyone in the District of Columbia been paying attention for the past three years? You would think Obama would have caught this with his vast experience running companies, governing States, and all. Oh thats right, he doesnt have any experience.

I just gave you $340.2 billion of simple budget cuts, while Obama refuses to acknowledge the problem. If you still dont get it, heres the wrap.

The economy isnt growing. The government is spending at a rate which is 322% greater than its underlying economy. Every additional dollar of tax revenue sucked out of our stagnant economy will cause the economy to decline further, while government continues to live the high life. Since there is no additional revenue to garner, government spending must be cut. The economy was on fire in 2007 on dramatically less government spending. Therefore, returning to the budget of 2007 damages nothing, other than Obamas plan to bankrupt the nation. If Obama isnt trying to bankrupt the USA, then what is he doing?

Fire Obama! Cut government spending. Cut the B.S. Cut it big. And cut it now!

Pull the headcount figures and I’ll be you would see a direct correlation between the number of employees (as reflected by these “outlay” stats) and the number of prosecutions for fraud, allegations of theft, conversion, and fraud. “Smaller government” has always been a core principle of conservatism for a reason: as the size of gov’t grows, so does the opportunity for corruption. The more employees, the more likely there will be bad apples in with the good. And worst of all, the more gov’t grows, the more it needs to continue to grow just to sustain itself, like the the “monster that ate New York” in the old horror flicks.

The solution is obvious. Finding a leader who will actually implement that solution is not.

My theory on the lack of a budget - This administration and the rats in congress do not want to pass a budget. If congress passes a budget the government agencies only have a set amount to spend.

Without a budget, Obama can allow his agencies to spend whatever they need and congress is forced to pass a continuing resolution to continue the party. There are no real or enforced restrictions on government spending right now.

It’s simplistic, but it also seems obvious. Is’nt it strange that nobody in the media discusses how the lack of a budget removes the constraints from government spending?

I would say this....the longer that the Senate goes...without discussing or approving a budget....the more likely people will reach the conclusion that they aren’t part of the solution, thus removing them from the approval process.

I think it’s time to review what the Senate ought to be around to conduct business on. My suggestion: approve court appointees, approve foreign treaties, attend funerals of bigwigs, and appoint candidates to service academies. I believe we could function with the Senate members meeting for four weeks each quarter, and then remove them from the Washington environment for the remaining eight weeks. There really isn’t much for these guys to do presently, except making speeches on the Senate floor....which any idiot could do, or do interviews with CNN or Fox.

How does the Executive Office of the President go from $2.956 billion down to $484 million? Exactly where is he stashing all of his employees, and to which department did he push his expenses?

He hasn't done anything. This was all before BO's time. The Executive Office of the President (EOP's) spending went from $386 million in 2003, to $3,349 million in 2004, to $7,686 million in 2005, then dropped to $5,379 million in 2006, to $2,956 million in 2007, to $1,173 million in 2008, to $743 million in 2009, to $582 million in 2010, and finally to $484 million in 2011.

All the growth in between was due to agencies added to the EOP after 9/11/01, such as OHS - Office of Homeland Security of (2001-2004), which was established in the EOP by E.O. 13228 of October 8, 2001, and later replaced by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), although they ran concurrently for some time, and also the HSC - Homeland Security Council, which also under the EOP.

Then there was the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (2004-2007), which was established in the EOP by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. And the Presidents Office of Science and Technology (OSTP) which estimated the FY2004 budget request for all federal R&D to combat terrorism at $3.2 billion, about 6 times the FY2000 amount. The new Department of Homeland Security only managed about one-third of that amount.

And let's not forget the White Houses Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) which collaborated with law enforcement to encourage existing High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) to conduct Consolidated Priority Organization Target List (CPOT) investigations. And Lord only knows what else. It's hard to get a straight answer all from the same source.

The Cato Institute was waiving the red flag all over the place, warning of out of control spending, but was anyone listening? Is anyone listening now?

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.